The Strange Case of the Cleared Throat

"At approximately the 6-minute-14-second-mark the film shows a man clearly licking the exposed vagina of a woman. At approximately the 12-minute-40 second-mark the film clearly shows anal intercourse between a male and female, female masturbation and the male ejaculating on the buttocks of the female. At approximately the 14-minute-mark the film shows two men and one woman engaged in anal intercourse and fellatio. The breast, penis, and vagina are fully exposed. The male ejaculates on the buttocks of one of the females..."

--From the affidavit of Detective Lieutenant Thomas Spartichino, Massachusetts State Police.

VERY FEW COURT BATTLES are really dry as dust, and obscenity cases add an element of chivalry: the earnest prosecutor, determined to protect the vaginas of women from exposure and licking; the eloquent defender, just as committed to guaranteeing the rights of those who would ejaculate in front of cameras and those who would pay money to watch.

One 70-minute screening of Deep Throat in early May set the judicial parts into their appointed, Newtonian motion--the actors knew their lines already, without consulting a script, and the ending was, well, predictable. One way to understand this courtoom drama is to look at the players:

CARL STORK '81 and NATHAN HAGEN '81--"Free the Quincy House Two," someone shouted as state troopers led Stork and Hagen away from the dining hall theater. The name fit conveniently in headlines, but it didn't really match Stork and Hagen. Were they revolutionaires, they probably would have shown "The Bolivian Repression" to a crowd of seven. Their roles called instead for sincerity. They had to convince the audience they were the good guys, but not so all-American as to lose their seedy believability. They are plot devices really, showing the film and then making a few cameo appearances in court. But if anyone is interested, their motivation, at least from the moment the district attorney said 'Stop!', was honest. They knew that if they showed the film they would be arrested. They didn't show it to make money. They made their decision knowing it would probably cost them time and dollars. They rather enjoyed the publicity, and in some ways the train of events moved so quickly they would have been hard-pressed to disembark. They were convinced, however, that they were sticking up for something important; hence, they were disappointed when the whole affair ended with a deal, not a righteous proclamation.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ and JEANNE BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen, the greatest first amendment lawyer in the world and his faithful sidekick. Dershowitz fits every stereotype--He's brilliant ("the youngest professor ever appointed to the Law School Faculty" the appositizers faithfully call him). He overflows with flair (his first involvement with the Deep Throat saga came when he got the phone message that a hearing for an injunction was in progress. Half an hour later, in a borrowed coat and tie, he was Clarence Darrowing his way through the last hundred years of first amendment law in front of a duly impressed judge). And he's a true believer, the Oral Roberts of the freedom of speech. So what if he likes the press and relishes having all the liberals mad at him? He knows he is right; it's so comforting to be an absolutist, for it never even allows you to think of circumstances and deviations and morality.

Baker, now the understudy, will someday be a star. Her questions trapped John Droney (see below) into agreeing to drop charges, and her carefully reasoned argument in front of a federal judge almost set Stork and Hagen free a month earlier. It will take her a few years before she gets dashing down pat, and sometimes she's a little over-organized, which can be dull. Caution can be carried too far; she seems convinced the press she defends is out to muddy her name, and consequently insists that if she says "good morning," it's off the record. She has the fundamentals, though, and the best teacher she could find to add some flash to her repertoire.

LARRY HARDOON and BILL CODINHA--And now, the defenders of public virtue. In case anyone thinks the district attorney's office had the same motivation in protesting the showing as the women who gathered outside Quincy House, they are wrong. Codinha, the chief assistant DA, and Hardoon, an assistant DA charged with handling the Deep Throat case, considered the movie obscene--not sexist, not likely to lead to violence against women, but just plain dirty.

A civil court judge ruled two hours before the showing that, as far as he was concerned, the film was not obscene. Outside, in the hallway, Hardoon and Codinha said they were "unsure" what the judge had ruled, and that anyway they would not let it stand in the way of a good prosecution.

Codinha takes a back seat after the first few days of the affair, but Hardoon stays out in the spotlight. One of the mighty and unanswered questions of this drama, spoken aloud by almost every member of the entire cast on occasion, was "Is Hardoon's heart really in this?" At times, he seemed to realize that he was handling a case only someone running for re-election could love. At others, though, he seemed to take the case seriously. "I am absolutely convinced we could have won...I have no idea what the federal judge (W. Arthur Garrity) was thinking of when he said there was 'no way' they could be convicted..."Hardoon insisted even after the deal was drawn up. But all along, Hardoon was very careful never to offend anybody--crammed into the Quincy House phone booth to speak with a federal judge who was considering blocking the arrests, Hardoon's first words were: "Judge Tauro, sir. Hello. I don't believe I've ever had the pleasure of meeting you sir."

JOHN DRONEY: If Dershowitz is "noted first amendment lawyer Alan Dershowitz," then John Droney is "ailing district attorney John Droney." Described as "charming" by those who met with him in the course of investigation, Droney is so handicapped that he cannot speak except through an interpreter. At first it seemed that Droney would take a back seat in the Deep Throat case; then, however, the defense decided to take a deposition from Droney, elected in a squeaker two years ago. Excerpts from the deposition gave a flavor of Droney's approach to his job as the county's top law officer.

"Q--And the fact that you were aware, had been informed that Judge Alberti had found the film to be not obscene, did not deter you from your purpose to stop showing of the film.

A--Obviously, obviously.

Mrs. Spear (Droney's interpreter)--I believe Mr. Droney said 'obviously.'

Q--Obviously, okay. And you feel that you can make a determination that criminal arrests should occur and a seizure of the film should occur after a Superior Court Judge has found the film to be not obscene?

A--That's right.

Q--You feel that you can prevent the showing of a film that that very day a Superior Court Judge has ruled not to be obscene?

A--We did it.

Q--You did it?

A--That's right."

Later, discussing the judge's ruling that the film was not obscene, Droney remarks that Alberti was "dead wrong on the obscenity issue." But Droney is not heartless--referring on at least one occasion to Stork and Hagen as "the children," he blames Dershowitz for the entire incident. "I believe in my judgement he would put the issue before the welfare of the students," he said, explaining why he refused to meet with Dershowitz before agreeing to the arrest and the seizure of the film.

THE HARVARD ADMINISTRATION: Represented in alphabetical order by Charles Dunn, master of Quincy House, Arhie C. Epps III, dean of students, and Elizabeth Swain, senior tutor in Quincy House. The Friday the film originally was to be shown, Dunn and Swain ordered the posting of a two-sentence announcement notifying the anticipatory throngs that their lust would have to be sated elsewhere. A week later, they agreed not to stand in the way. But not Epps, who called the district attorney's office to let them know the film was on. Droney again: "apparently the Dean of Harvard told Bill Codinha he would try to prevent it...he said he thought they would not show it, and if they did, he would call Bill Codinha and inform him."

Epps explains that he only made the call as part of a "gentleman's agreement" he had struck with the DA's office in hopes of preventing the arrest of Harvard students. And within minutes of Stork and Hagen's arrival at the police station, Epps was there to help bail them out.

THE PROTESTERS: Theirs is the saddest story of the whole affair. Stork and Hagen lost a couple of dozen hours spent in court, and quite a bit of sleep. But the more than 150 protesters who marched through Quincy House courtyard that Friday night lost much more--the impact of one of the biggest protests ever organized by campus feminists was twisted and muted by the arrests. Within an hour, instead of basking in the glow of a job well done, they were feverishly preparing a one-page statement explaining that they did not condone censorship and arrests. The people in the saga who acted with the purest motives ended up in worst shape; defending themselves against the charge that they had caused the arrest of two fellow students, Quincy House feminists had no time to exploit the energy and fervor they had raised in the days before the showing.

For the record: No Harvard student lodged a formal complaint with the district attorney's office. Sources in that office reveal that at least two students called for information, and that the DA's office, without informing them that they might be setting a full-scale investigation into progress, decided to act on them as if they were formal complaints. The DA's office refused to confirm the sources' story or to reveal the names of the students who phoned for information.

* * *

The Deep Throat affair is over now, two months after the film society decided to pay off their debts--$400 worth of damage done when someone hurled beer at a Science Center movie screen--by showing a stag film. It didn't end in a burst of glory for either side. The DA's office realized they were fighting a battle they would eventually lose. They offered to settle, and the defense, unwilling to pay the emotional price of continuing the battle, accepted a technical victory that stands far short of defending the first amendment.

There will be other, similar, cases in the future. Quite possibly, should the defendants be unable to secure the services of the best constitutional lawyers Harvard Law School has to offer, they will be convicted. Quite possibly, if they aren't Harvard students, no one will pay any attention.